Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

Author
Topic: Question in regards to research. (Read 4412 times)

I have been looking on the government website that tracks spending and what I found from a brief search was that we sent nearly $60 million over seas for AIDS/HIV programs but only $11 million to research. I just feel that it should be reversed, when I read of research being unable to start, continue, or finish because of a lack of funding wouldn't it make more sense to use the majority of funds to research a cure rather then just trying to bandage the wound? I relate it to a large gash it's more expensive to get stitches but it'll help it heal quicker and doesn't need to be done over and over like a bandaid.

I'm in no way saying that we should not support nations but just that with the advances I've read from the conference it just seems the same funds could be better spent and I'd like this to be a open discussion I'm open to other opinions and would just like to see how others feel about this.

But spending to prevent transmission of HIV today means less people get HIV. Spending on antiretrovirals saves lives. I think the idea was that someone had to cough up money to help an urgent, humanitarian crisis. Show me the experts who discuss the costs and benefits of the how to divvy a governments limited funds between the two: treatment of people living with HIV, or research. Furthermore, whats the percentage that should be spent on research on treatment versus specific research for a cure.

I don't know jack squat how those arguments might run. Do you?

I don't kwow where you get the figure of 60 million. With PEPFAR, until 2008 the US gave 3 BILLION a year in foreign hiv/aids, TB, and malaria assistance. 2008-2012 - 39 BILLION for HIV and the Global Fund.http://www.kff.org/globalhealth/upload/8002-03.pdf

Lantos-Hyde (Through FY 2013) Support: • Treatment of at least 3 million• Prevention of more than 12 million new infections • Provision of care to more than 5 million OVCs • Training & retention of more than 140,000 new health care workers • • •

I think this program has done a lot to change tide of HIV in the world and i can't see begrudging it its budget to rather spend it all on cure research. I mean why should I have a light go of it, benefiting from my rich country medical care and the best new drugs, while other humans suffer horribly and die? For god's sake, at least every HIV+ person in the world should have at least a supply of the best new medicine, no matter how crappy their country's medical system.

« Last Edit: July 29, 2012, 08:29:15 PM by mecch »

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

wouldn't it make more sense to use the majority of funds to research a cure rather then just trying to bandage the wound?

many of the funds (PEPFAR is way more that $60 mill by the way) that you're talking about are currently being used to treat people who are already HIV positive by supplying medications. Should they just not get treatment for a while in the hopes that putting those funds towards research will come up with a cure before they pass away from teh aids?

While I totally agree that somehow we need to fund more research towards a cure, I don't think that spending the money designated for treatment is where we should look to for the funding. Personally, I don't think of the funding that pays for my meds as a "bandage on the wound"; although they might be closer to the cure if they just hadn't had to treat me for the last 20 yrs.

I have been looking on the government website that tracks spending and what I found from a brief search was that we sent nearly $60 million over seas for AIDS/HIV programs but only $11 million to research. I just feel that it should be reversed, when I read of research being unable to start, continue, or finish because of a lack of funding wouldn't it make more sense to use the majority of funds to research a cure rather then just trying to bandage the wound? I relate it to a large gash it's more expensive to get stitches but it'll help it heal quicker and doesn't need to be done over and over like a bandaid.

I'm in no way saying that we should not support nations but just that with the advances I've read from the conference it just seems the same funds could be better spent and I'd like this to be a open discussion I'm open to other opinions and would just like to see how others feel about this.

Are you willing to forego the money spent on your own treatment in the interest of providing a cure for later people?

Thanks this is what I was hoping for. Yeah military spending is soo excessive but that's another topic that can start a war depending on who is asked. It's just frustrating watching systems implemented so long ago that worked well then but now are outdated.

My figures came from http://www.usaspending.gov/ where I just looked at the first page after sorting by largest amount spent after searching for HIV.

I mean no disrespect by my initial post just searching for answers it seems there are so many eager researchers with ideas but not many get to implement research in regards to their idea.

Thanks this is what I was hoping for. Yeah military spending is soo excessive but that's another topic that can start a war depending on who is asked.

really it's not another topic at all, it's the same topic. Government Spending. Government basically has a finite amount of resources each year. They can prioritize spending in any way they want/need. Right now they spend X on military, Y on AIDS treatment, and Z on HIV cure. You want them to increase Z, people need the amount Y to stay treated, so the other option (just in this example) is to decrease X. Just because it's a hard topic to get people to discuss rationally doesn't mean we should not broach the subject. Saying nothing means nothing changes. Saying something, either with polite debate or radical activism, is the only way get the government to allocate the money differently.

it seems there are so many eager researchers with ideas but not many get to implement research in regards to their idea.

"eager researchers" don't necessarily mean good science. I would imagine researchers able to demonstrate very good ideas should be able to secure private funds too and not necessarily rely on just the government. Then again there are so many other researchers with funding issues who have been, for years, studying other diseases which affect a much larger percentage of the population without any cures being developed yet. I don't think anyone should be surprised at this point that HIV research has funding issues and no cure too.

What I see missing in the discussion of HIV research in the media is the financial cost of NOT finding a cure.

Another way to think about this is to ask: "What would the financial savings be for finding a cure one year before it would otherwise be found?"

At the most basic level, with 1 million people in the US HIV positive, and a cost of $10,000 each for drugs, and lets assume another $5,000 for other treatment (some much more, some much less) -- which translates to a cost of $15 billion per year of treatment in the US alone. This doesn't include the "softer" costs, such as the lost economic output of those 1 million people.

If we spent $15 billion - I am sure we would have the cure at least a year before given the current levels of funding - and if we found it more than a year earlier then there would be "savings" which could be directed to other medical/social issues.

What I also see missing in the discussion of funding is the fact that the insurance companies seem to have a very large vested interest in finding a cure, and yet I don't see any discussion of them investing.

They are not gonna spend 50% of the GDP to cure HIV even if it would save them money on the long run. It's just not how things work...Besides, back in the 80s when they started looking for a cure they didn't have any chance to find it, no matter how much money they'd invested at that time, simply because technology wasn't that far.Personally, I am pretty happy with how things are going. There is some great medication available now and the current developments in research are so promising that scientists dare to mutter the word 'cure' again.

Then again there are so many other researchers with funding issues who have been, for years, studying other diseases which affect a much larger percentage of the population without any cures being developed yet.

Very true and something I think people should keep in mind so as to have a reasonable perspective on this issue.

For example, if you watch day-time telly in the UK, you will often see ads for Cancer Research UK, a charity that collects donations which are put towards research. I have never once seen an ad for a comparable hiv research charity - and I'm not sure one even exists. If one does exist, they're not spending any money on getting more of the public to donate.

So maybe if some of you who are fretting about the lack of research funding were to get together and start a charity to garner more funds from the public sector, then you'd be doing something productive rather than just moaning about the situation. Food for thought?

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

I'm talking about people getting some perspective. Is that really all that difficult to understand?

It'll always be difficult to make them understand because people are always more concerned about the disease that they have. When one realistically considers how far science and the meds have come in just a short 30 yrs, they should truly be amazed and thankful.

Not to mention the biggest hurdle to jump over in treating this illness - the amount of people affected. In America, HIV effects only about .5% of the population, so I'm surprised that much of anything has been done to deal with HIV. Actually the government did very little until a grassroots movement stood up to the government and demanded something be done.

If groups like ACTUP and other positive people hadn't demanded help, things wouldn't be this far along and then some of these people would have really had something to bitch about. LOL or maybe they would have already formed research funding charities or been at the recent March on Washington during the conference making more of a presence demanding more research funding.

So maybe if some of you who are fretting about the lack of research funding were to get together and start a charity to garner more funds from the public sector, then you'd be doing something productive rather than just moaning about the situation. Food for thought?

And if more people here came out of their AIDS closets they could convince Momsums and Dadsums to give money. That's what mine do.

If there were more campaigns out there to show that HIV+ are not promiscuous, skinny, near-death gay guys (which I believe is the image most people still have of it) then more people might come out the closet.

But I guess that's in no one's interest, is it? To show that HIV+ are normal people is such a dangerous thing to do...

And the point being? That's what I meant, everyone has the wrong perception of it and this doesn't help disclosure at all.

If more people were out about their hiv status, then negative people would no longer have that perception. It has certainly worked in the town where I live, where there are at least three of us who are open and out of the hiv closet.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Disclosure, as a means of raising public awareness, is certainly an element to lead to increased research and treatment funding. However, disclosure alone is at best a very indirect path to raising funding. I think Leatherman said it best that you have to speak up (politely or radically - I think both are needed) to those that make policy and funding decisions and we need to be thankful for those that have spoken up in the past.

My take away from this thread is to send Act Up a check. Which other organizations (polite or radical) have been effective?

Let us not forget that discoveries in disparate fields often lead to advances in HIV treatment, starting with AZT, the shelved anti cancer drug. We must advocate continued and increased spending in the basic sciences. PCR, restriction enzymes, and homologous recombination leading to gene knockouts all came out of basic research.At the forefront of a possible HIV cure are the zinc finger nucleases whose discovery was in studying transcription in the frog genome.

My take away (for those who don't have the money to fund research) is to get personally involved. Join ActUp. Join your local state task force. Form your own advocacy group.

At the absolute very least, something that every one of us should be doing -call, email, and write your state and federal Legislators. Tell them your concerns about HIV research, treatment AND prevention! You don't even have to disclosure to your Legislators - although do disclosure that you are one of the constituents and that you plan to vote!